The Pilgrim

The Quarterly Bulletin of the Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism

The Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism

Patrons: The Metropolitan of India, Calcutta Bishop BRENTON T. BADLEY, Delhi.

† President: Bishop CLEMENT D. ROCKEY, Lucknow.

† Secretary: Dr. J.E. McELDOWNEY, Leonard Theological College, Jabalpur

† Treasurer: Dr. C.H. HAZLETT, A. P. Mission, Mainpuri, U.P.

† Convener, Benares Institute: Rev. R.C. DAS, M.A., 129 Dashashwamedh, Benares.

† Editor of the Pilgrim: Rev. J.S. MOON, M.A., 54 Barrack Road, Barrackpore.

Special Representatives:

Church of India, Burma and Ceylon:

• The Lord Bishop of Lucknow, Allahabad.
• Dr. A.J. Appasamy, Palamcottah.

Church of Scotland Mission:

• Rev. Alexander McLeish, Church House, Nasirabad (Raj.)

Kellogg Memorial Church:

• Rev. J.V. Dibben, 87, Banaras Cantonment

Serampore College: † Prof. V.E. Dutt, M.A., B.D. Leonard Theological College: The Secretary. Evangelism: † Mr. M.C. Dharmaraj, Y.M.C.A. Student Hostel, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. Women’s Work: † Mrs. W. Stanley Gould, Ewing Christian College, Allahabad. The Tract Societies: Rev. Paul Das, B.A., 19 Clive Road, Allahabad. South India, Special Representative: † Mr. S.J. Daurisami, N.M.S. House, Royapettah, Madras. National Christian Council: Dr. M.T. Titus, Nelson Square, Nagpur. Henry Martyn School of Islamics: Dr. R. Donaldson, Aligarh, U.P.

† Denotes member of Executive

The objects of the Christian Society for the Study of Hinduism are,

1. To create and maintain adequate interest in the study of Hinduism by Christians
2. To carry on the study in a sympathetic, constructive and critical way for the purpose of effective evangelism and
3. To achieve the above objects in co-operation with Church and Mission bodies.

The activities of the Society are,

1. To conduct in Benares (and if possible in a South Indian centre) an Institute of Hinduism stressing its popular aspects
2. Publish The Pilgrim, a quarterly bulletin, bearing on Hinduism, its relation To Christianity and work among Hindus and
3. To encourage the organisation of a permanent School of Hinduism.

The minimum annual subscription is Rs. 2/-. Membership fees and gifts may be sent to the treasurer, Dr. C.H. Hazlett, A.P. Mission, Mainpuri, U.P.

Every member will receive The Pilgrim free.

Editorial Board: Bishop Clement D. Rockey, Dr. A.J. Appasamy Mrs. W.S. Gould Rev. C.G. Diehl (Madras) Dr. J.E. McEldowney Prof. V.E. Dutt Rev. A.M. Ward (Bangalore) Mr. R.C. Das Rev. J.S. Moon (Editor)

The Secretary points out that the views expressed in the Minutes represent the Executive’s opinion so far as he has been able to ascertain it.

Editor.

Bhakti in the Bhagavad Gita

The trickling stream of Bhakti which we saw emerging from the Katha Upanishad has swollen into a flood in the Bhagavad Gita. The date of the Gita has been variously assigned from between 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. We are safe in assuming that it was written somewhere about the beginning of the Christian era. It must have taken some time for Bhakti doctrine to have grown. This text has a very great importance in the religious literature of India. All through the centuries its influence has been felt though in those days when education was not widespread and sacred learning was confined only to the Brahmans it is likely that those who made direct acquaintance with the Gita were not many. But through the religious leaders of the country its thoughts have sunk into the mind and heart of the people.

The passages from the Gita in this paper, are taken from the translation by D.S. Sarma.

The Idea of God

The seer who wrote the Gita makes Arjuna learn from the lips of Krishna the fundamental characteristics of God. Krishna thus sets forth his idea of God. Krishna superintends creation but is not in any way bound by it. ‘At the end of a cycle all beings pass into Nature which is my own, O Arjuna: and at the beginning of a cycle I generate them again. Controlling Nature which is my own, I send forth again and again all this multitude of beings, which are helpless under the sway of Nature. And those works do not bind me O Arjuna, for I remain unattached in the midst of my works like one unconcerned, Under my guidance Nature gives birth to all things - those that move and those that do not move; and by this means, Arjuna, the world revolves.’¹ All men’s activities arise from Him. ‘Intelligence, knowledge, sanity, patience, truth, self-control, and calmness; pleasure and pain, being and non-being, fear and fearlessness; non-violence, equanimity, contentment, austerity, alms giving, fame and obloquy - these different attributes of beings arise but from me.’² He has no end to achieve but works for the sake of the world. ‘There is nothing in the three worlds, O Arjuna, for me to achieve, nor is there anything to gain which I have not gained. Yet I continue to work. If I should cease to work, these worlds would perish, and I should cause confusion and destroy these people.’³ He becomes incarnate from time to time. ‘Though I am unborn, and my nature is eternal, and though I am the Lord of all creatures, I employ Nature which is my own, and take birth through my divine power. For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked and for the establishment of the Law. I am born from age to age.’⁴ His attitude to the world is controlled and inspired by love. ‘Of these the man who knows, who has his devotion centred in One and who is ever attuned, is the best. For supremely dear am I to the man who knows, and he is dear to me.’⁵

The Vision of God

Arjuna is not satisfied with this account of God. He wants to see God Himself.

The supremely profound discourse concerning the soul which Thou hast delivered of Thy grace to me - by this has my delusion been dispelled.

For I have learnt from Thee at length, O Thou of lotus eyes, the origin and the dissolution of beings, and also Thy imperishable greatness.

What Thou hast declared Thyself to be, O supreme Lord - it is even so. But I desire to see Thy divine form, O supreme Person.

If, Lord, Thou thinkest that I am able to behold it, then do Thou, O Lord of Yogins, reveal! To me Thy immutable form.⁶ The longing to see God is a passionate desire which many of the bhakti saints felt. We shall come across this desire again and again in the course of our study. This is a natural desire. Abstract qualities, however, carefully described do not capture the heart. They do not really enter into the life and texture of a soul. Man hankers after the vision of God. He deeply yearns for the sight of God as He is.

Krishna yields to this natural and eager desire, and he manifests to Arjuna his real form. Krishna now appears before Arjuna in a wondrous vision. Many of the details of this picture may not appeal to us, but we should make an attempt to enter into the symbolism of the Vision.

The first feature of the vision which strikes us is the beauty of God.

’If the light of a thousand suns were to burst forth all at once in the sky, it would be like the splendour of that mighty One.

I behold Thee growing as a mass of light everywhere with Thy diadem, mace and disc, dazzling the sight on every side, blazing like the burning fire of the sun, once passing all bounds.’⁷ This thought of the beauty of God continually comes up in Bhakti literature. There is a wonderful loveliness and glory about God. We all know that Nature is beautiful - the sun, the moon, the stars, the trees with their lovely burden of green, the mountains covered with snow, the sea glistening in the sunshine. The bhaktas realise that not merely Nature, but God is beautiful.

The power of God is also emphasised in the vision.

‘Looking at Thy great form, O mighty Lord, with myriad mouths and eyes, with myriad arms, thighs and feet, with myriad of trunks, and terrible with myriad fangs - the worlds tremble, and so do I.’⁸ In Hindu imagery a hand means the possession of much power. The other limbs likewise are multiplied to indicate the extensive power of God.

The comprehensiveness of God is also brought out in the vision.

‘There, in the person of the God of gods, Arjuna beheld the whole’ universe with its manifold divisions, all gathered together in One.

‘In Thy body, O God, 1 see all the gods and all the varied hosts of being as well - Brahma the Lord on his throne, and all the Rishis and the heavenly Nagas.’⁹

This vision, which is known as Visvarupam or the all-inclusive form of God, includes everything. There is nothing in the world that is not connected with God. Everything finds its ultimate reality in Him.

It is interesting to consider whether this vision merely gives a concrete form to ideas already set forth or whether it seeks to impress upon the mind ideas not yet referred to. If we compare this vision carefully with the teaching about God which is given in the first ten chapters of the Gita we shall find that this vision does not merely confirm or deepen the impression already set out. With great impressiveness and vivid reality the fact that God is beautiful, full of power and comprehensive of everything is explained.

There is much difference of opinion as to the value of visions. But a study of the religions of mankind reveals the fact that at different periods and in different countries prophets and spiritual leaders have been helped to grasp the truth most effectively through visions. Visions have not been among the accidental paraphernalia of religion. They have been of the inner heart of religion. We may well surmise that to this seer likewise this vision was not just one among many incidents in his spiritual life but an event of supreme and absorbing importance. It left a deep impress upon his memory, and it moulded all his subsequent thinking.

The Results of the Vision

It is interesting to trace the immediate effects on his soul of this vision. The first effect is that he feels led to offer a prayer for forgiveness. He had probably not realised all the glory and majesty of God. He thinks that he had probably erred in the matter of reverence.

’Hail to Thee before, and hail to Thee behind, and hail to Thee on every side. O All Infinite in power and immeasurable in might. Thou dost pervade all, and therefore, Thou art All.

In thinking that Thou art my friend and unaware of this Thy greatness, I addressed Thee in ignorance or love as “O Krishna”, “O Yadava” or “O Friend”.

If in my mirth I showed no reverence to Thee while playing or resting, while sitting or eating, while alone, O eternal Lord, or in the presence of others, I implore Thee, who art infinite, to pardon.

Thou art the Father of the world - of all that move and all that do not move. Thou art the object of its worship and its greatest Teacher. There is no one equal to Thee.

How then could there be in the three worlds one greater than Thee, O Thou of incomparable power?

Therefore, I bow down and prostrate myself, before Thee, adorable Lord, and seek Thy grace. Bear with me as a father with a son, as a friend with a friend, and as a lover with his beloved.’¹⁰

The forgiveness for which he asks is for only one type of sin, viz, that of irreverence. But even so it is significant that the vision fills him with a sense of his own unworthiness and of his spiritual failure. It is as well that in this important document of Hindu Bhakti the central experience is that of a vision of the majesty and glory of God and that this experience gives a special stamp and impress to the whole thought and life of the author. There were many Hindu bhaktas who in their anxiety to love God as a human person and to lavish on Him all the endearments and affections of which man is capable have spoken of Him in terms which are far from dignifying. When we come to Tukaram, we shall find in him an outstanding example, of this kind of weakness. But in the Bhagavad Gita and in the other religious books of India which have been influenced by it this vision imparts to the idea of God a dignity and majesty which it sometimes failed to have in some of the bhaktas.

Prof. Otto has brought home to us the importance of the idea of the holy. He has shown us that the essential element in all religion is the awareness of the majesty and awfulness of God. In more primitive forms of religion this awareness is a crude type of fear. As religion becomes refined this essential element becomes refined too. Even in the highest stages of religious development there is present, though in a very sublimated form, the apprehension of God as a holy and majestic being.

We should also note that following the vision there occurs a full and uncompromising demand, for Bhakti. The chapter that speaks most fully about Bhakti is the twelfth chapter, and it follows the vision immediately.

’Those who have fixed their minds on me, and who, ever steadfast and possessed of supreme faith, worship me-them do I consider perfect in Yoga.

But those who consecrate all their actions to me and regard me as their dearest one, who meditate on me and worship me with single-hearted devotion.

I save them full soon, O Arjuna, from death and the ocean of mortal life, their minds being ever set on me.

Fix thy mind on me alone, let thy thoughts rest in me. And in me alone wilt thou live hereafter. Of this there is no doubt.

If thou art not able to fix thy mind on me, O Arjuna, then seek to reach me by the practice of concentration.

If thou art not able to practise concentration of mind, then devote thyself to my service. For even by doing service to me thou canst reach perfection.

If thou art not able to do even this, then give up the fruit of all action, seeking refuge in devotion to me with thy mind subdued.

He who never hates any being and is kindly and compassionate, who is free from the feeling of ‘I’ and ‘Mine’, and who looks upon pleasure and pain alike, and has forbearance.

He who is ever content and is steady in contemplation, who is self-restrained and is of firm conviction, and who has consecrated his mind and understanding to me - dear to me is the man who is thus devoted.

And they who have faith and follow this righteous way of everlasting life thus set forth, and regard me as supreme - exceedingly dear to me are they who are thus devoted.’¹¹

This is the normal law in the spiritual world A clear revelation involves heavy obligations. The fuller the knowledge which is reached, the fuller the life of obedience and surrender which is demanded. If God shows Himself to men He challenges them to implicit obedience and lays upon them burdens and tasks which they must carry out.

What is the nature of this Bhakti which is demanded? It involves trust and affection and love. Man must give up everything to God and wait expectantly, for blessings from Him. He cannot do this by merely striving. He does it because God graciously, enables him to do it. God’s grace kindles the desire as well as furnishes the capacity for obedience. Not asceticism, not study, not sacrifice but the deepest and fullest, surrender and trust leads us to God.

God, and the Gods

The doctrine of God which we have set forth is consistent and belongs to the higher types of Theism. But we find two other strands of thought in the Gita, which essentially belong to its conception of God. A passage in chapter iv runs thus: ‘Howsoever, men approach me, even so do I accept them: for on, all sides whatever path they may choose is mine, O Arjuna. Those who desire the fruit of their, works worship the gods here; for quickly in this world of men: do such works bear fruit.¹² Again, in chapter ix, ’Even those who worship the other gods and are endowed with faith, worship me alone. O, Arjuna, though in a wrong way. For I am the enjoyer and the lord of all sacrifices. But these men do not know my real nature, and hence they fall. Those who worship the gods go to the gods, those who worship the manes go, to the manes, those who worship the spirits, go to the spirits, and those who worship me come to me.’¹³ This seems to mean that other gods may be worshipped; that rewards are given for such worship, though they are not of the highest kind; and that the Eternal and, Supreme one accepts this worship as offered to Himself.

The Gita has failed to present a convincing case for Theism by thus accepting, and allowing the worship of other gods. It is perfectly true that the Gita assigns a secondary place to these other gods. It is also true that the Gita points out that, the reward which is attached to the worship of these gods is temporary and not of the best type. The highest type of reward is given only to the man who worships the Eternal and Supreme One. But even so, the very fact that these lesser gods are recognised has spoilt the completeness and the adequacy of the theistic position of the Gita. No faith spreads which thus compromises with lesser beings. It is only when faith is concentrated on a single issue and its importance is emphasised without a shadow of doubt or hesitation that it wins, a large following. That is how the Hebrew prophets left their impress on religion. They stood unflinchingly for this belief in one God. They did not allow, any sort of room for other gods. They vigorously and emphatically called the attention of men to the Holy One of Israel. Their gaze was fixed on Him. Not for a moment did they allow themselves or their hearers and, readers, to divert their look to other beings. This is the first strand I have referred to.

Is the Gita Monistic?

There are also passages in the Gita which seem to indicate a monistic or pantheistic point of view. “To him the offering is God, the oblation is God; and it is God that offers it in the fire of God. Thus, does he realise God in his works, and he reaches Him as one.’¹⁴ ‘I am the taste in the waters, O Arjuna; I am the light in the sun and the moon. I am the syllable OM in all the Vedas, I am the sound in ether and manliness in men. I am the pure fragrance in the earth and the brightness in the fire. I am the life in all creatures, and the austerity in ascetics. Know me to be the seed, O Arjuna, of all things that are. I am the wisdom of the wise, and I am the glory of the glorious. I am the strength of the strong, free from desire and passion. And I am the desire in all creatures, O Arjuna, which is not in conflict: with the law’¹⁵ As Garbe says, ‘At one time Krishna says of himself that he is the one sole supreme God, the creator and ruler of the universe and of all things therein; at another he sets forth the Vedantic doctrine of the Brahman and of Maya, the cosmical illusion, and proclaims that the supreme end of man is to transcend this cosmical illusion and become one with Brahman. These two doctrines, the theistic and the pantheistic are interwoven with one another, closely and without0 a break, sometimes following one another, sometimes more loosely connected.’¹⁶

The question then, to settle is whether the Gita is in essence theistic or monistic and why these two diverse elements are brought together in it. Several explanations have been offered for the presence of these contradictory views of Reality in the book.

1. It has been suggested that the author of the Gita was not a systematic thinker but a poet. Like most poets he was primarily interested in throwing out flashes of in. sight so expressed as to stir the soul and imagination of the reader. It was not his purpose to view the great problem of life necessarily from the single point of view. But his aim was rather to suggest according to his different moods various approaches to the fundamental problems which engage the attention of thoughtful men. When we read a poem we do not look in it for a carefully built up system of thought. We rather seek to come in contact with a noble spirit who himself experiences moments of exaltation as he contemplates the universe and who takes his readers to such heights. While it is quite true that the Gita is essentially a poem we cannot for that reason give up the search for an explanation of these contradictory ideas of Reality found in it. The author of the Gita belongs to that small group of poets, who though they write in verse and are capable of stirring the deepest emotions, are also interested in gathering their thoughts into some kind of unified scheme. In other words, the author of the Gita is a thinker as well as a poet, and we cannot evade the problem before us by saying that he was really far more of a poet than a thinker.

2. Another explanation which has been offered is that the author of the Gita is a theist; the Gita as it came from his pen was completely theistic in its outlook, but a later editor has introduced into it passages which are monistic in their trend. The philosophy of Monism was becoming popular and an editor who wanted to make use of an ancient document to support Monism has interpolated into it monistic ideas. This explanation is offered by Garbe. But like all, other theories of interpolation it is impossible to prove it conclusively. It is always easy to get rid of, difficult passages from our texts by supposing that they are due to a different hand. But how can we effectively and convincingly show that they are indeed so?

3. Another explanation which has been given is that the author of the Gita is above all interested in a synthetic view of life. He comes across different ideas, each with a measure of truth in it, and he sets them all forth without troubling to make up his own mind as to which is essentially correct. He is attracted by the theistic and the monistic approaches to God. He knows there is a measure of truth in both of them. He knows that God is a tremendous Reality and that sometimes He must be described in personal terms and sometimes in impersonal terms. He does not eliminate one of these but allows both to stand together. This explanation does not do justice to the profound thought lying behind the Gita. It seems impossible after a careful study of the Gita to rest in the conviction that the author simply brought together two opposite points of view realising the value in each but without making any serious attempt to resolve them into a complete harmony.

4. The explanation which I myself should like to put forth is this. With Ramanuja, the greatest theistic commentator on the Bhagavad Gita. I should like to understand all the seemingly monistic passages as really the expression of a belief in an immanent God. Take, for instance, the passages, ‘To him the offering is God, the oblation is God, and it is God that offers it in the fire of God’.¹⁷ It will be seen here that in this verse the apparatus of offering, the object offered, the devotee who offers it and the fire in which it is offered are all equated with God. Here surely is monism. Ramanuja in his famous commentary on the Gita explains the passage as meaning that the devotee contemplates Brahman as abiding in all acts. In other words, God is not the apparatus of offering; He is immanent in it. He is not the oblation; He is immanent in the oblation; He is not the devotee who offers; He is immanent in the devotee. He is not the fire in which the offering is made; He is immanent in the fire. In this way Ramanuja consistently explains all seemingly monistic passages in the Gita. Perhaps Ramanuja is right. The line between Theism and monism is always so thin. The man who is full of God finds God immanent everywhere. By maintaining that the passages in the Gita which seem to indicate Monism are really meant to teach Immanence we get a consistent point of view.

The Joy of Worship

From 400 B.C.

BY LATE DR. J.N. FARQUHAR

In the Punjab the Aryans worshipped their visible gods, offering them many forms of sacrifice and using their trained priests for all the greater sacrifices. Their Dravidian serfs, on the other hand, worshipped invisible spirits and offered them sacrifice in their own way. It seems as if their cult was very similar to the village worship of the Dravidians of S. India today. Religiously, the Aryans and their serfs stood utterly apart both in the Punjab and also after they had spread far over North India.

In modern India, on the other hand, Hinduism is a vast unity and shows its harmony most distinctly in this, that the whole Hindu people, with scarcely an exception, honours a large pantheon of gods by image-worship in dignified temples, while each family, in its domestic worship, also uses images. In this chapter we must realise how this great and vastly important change came about.

No account of the change is to be found in any Hindu book, but from the occurrence of many chance phrases connected with images and temples in the literature, it is quite plain that the people as a whole adopted temple and image worship at some date” not far removed” from 400 B.C.

The same conclusion arises from the study of the remains of sculpture and architecture in stone. These begin to appear about 300 B.C. Evidently, during the first century of the new worship, practically all shrines and images were of wood and have therefore perished; but from the fourth century stone images are found, and Hindu temples are represented in Buddhist sculpture.

Buddhists and Jains began to use temples and images at later dates.

A very consistent tradition also exists among Hindu scholars with regard to this subject. They say that temple-and-image worship grew up among Sudras and was finally adopted by the three Aryan castes. This chapter attempts to show how the change came about.

We learned at an earlier point in this volume that, just before they started out from the Punjab to conquer new lands, the Aryan people recognised their Dravidian serfs as a fourth class alongside the three Aryan classes, giving them the title Sudra. Thus, arose the fourfold social organisation known as the Caste system, which has been the most prominent characteristic of the Hindu people throughout its history. Yet, to this day, the deep distinction between the three Aryan castes and the Dravidian Sudras survives in all its strength.

We also recollect that every act of Aryan worship was a domestic rite: they had no public worship; while the sudra, cult was open to everyone, like the village worship of S. India today.

The Aryans in their new settlements with their capacity and their new opportunities, made great progress along various lines; and the Sudras naturally shared in the uplift. This prosperity is reflected in the literature.

We must therefore think of new towns springing up with a happy mixed population, Aryan and Dravidian, carrying on large operations together, yet absolutely separate from each other in every detail of their social and religious life.

The Sudras necessarily practised their old religion, setting the old symbols in the new soil, and worshipping the old gods in their noisy fashion. But they were, in a sense, new men in a new country already conscious of a new position as conquerors and as enjoying prosperity. Thus, to build small shrines for their gods and to give their worship a new dignity, would be an inevitable wish.

Now they were living alongside of the Aryans who worshipped heavenly gods. They were like the Romans when they first came into contact with the Greeks. As the Romans identified their own old gods with the glorious divinities of Greece, the Dravidians identified their gods with the great Aryan gods. One case of this kind stands out quite clear; they identified the god whom they worshipped through the phallus with the great Vedic god Rudra, i.e., ‘the roarer’; and, at a rather later date, the more pleasing name Siva, which means ‘kindly, gracious one’, was substituted for Rudra. They also began to use Sanskrit, the tongue of the gods, in their religion, and gave their gods Sanskrit names. One clear case is Krishna, whose name is the Sanskrit word for “black”. He was thus a black Dravidian god. Rama is another case for his name means “swarthy”. But the clearest case of all is the goddess who was the consort of Siva; in Dravidian speech her name is Amma, which means “Mother”; this word was Sanskritised as Uma.

But the giving of a Sanskrit name to a Dravidian god was not enough: a god had to be identified with or connected with one of the great Vedic divinities, if he was to rise to really great dignity. Now there was no god in the Vedic pantheon who was in any way like Krishna; for Krishna was believed to have been born and to have lived like a man among “the cow-keeping people of Mathura and the country round. Thus, he could not be said to be one of the Vedic gods. But, though he had lived like a man, he was held to be a god. Why should it not be said then, that he was a representative of one of the Vedic gods, sent down to live on earth for a time for some special divine purpose? So they said he was a part of the great Vedic, god Vishnu, sent down to earth to rid the earth of monsters. This tale was told, then, and Krishna was said to be in some sense Vishnu himself, and yet distinct, sent down to live on earth as a man among men, and kill evil minded demons. So in this way, Krishna attracted much worship and inspired much bhakti. He was called, an avatara, i.e., a descent, in the sense that he had come down from heaven. This word gradually acquired the sense of”a divine incarnation”. Another god, Rama, (whose name has been already mentioned) was similarly honoured as an incarnation of Vishnu.

The setting up of shrines for their gods would help their religion greatly, especially when larger buildings worthy of the name of temples are erected. The temple is an institution of great value and importance. Its significance lies in this, that you can now worship in peace, undisturbed by bad weather, by unsympathetic outsiders, or by anything that is going on in the open air. It is also possible in temples to have a fixed ritual and liturgy and to make the worship truly reverent, in every detail. The individual worshipper is also able to kneel before the image and pray in peace, or to stand and sing, a hymn of praise. The temple thus makes a great advance in the cult possible, and is of special value to the reverent individual, whether man or woman, who wishes to pray and praise. It is probable that in imitation of the training of Brahman priests, Sudra priests received an education to prepare them for their duties. They would be taught a little Sanskrit and would use it, to introduce a fixed liturgy into the ritual; and they would imitate the dignity and the precise regularity of the Vedic ritual and liturgy. The prestige of Brahmans and of their education would lead to this.

It is clear that in Sudra temples, from an early date, it was the rule that there were sixteen operations in the ritual of worshipping a god. The god was treated as if he were a king, and the priest, in acting as the king’s servant, bathing and dressing him and giving, him food, drink, etc., performed sixteen ritual acts, called, the shodasa upachara, i.e., ‘the sixteen operations’. This rule is observed in every Hindu temple today. There are at least three times of public worship each day in every Hindu temple and the rule of the sixteen operations is universally observed. We give these operations here.

The Sixteen Ritual Acts of Worship

1. Padya: The priest brings water and washes the feet;
2. Achamaniga; Gives water to rinse the mouth;
3. Arghya: Pours out a libation of water with several ingredients;
4. Madhuparka: Gives a mouthful of a honey mixture;
5. Punarachamaniya; Gives Water to rinse the mouth again;
6. Ananiya; Bathes the idol;
7. _Vastra: Puts on the undergarment;
8. _Uttariya: Puts on the upper garment;
9. _Yajnopavita: Puts on the sacred thread¹⁸;
10. _Bhushana: Puts on the ornaments:
11. Jala: Gives drinking-water:
12. Gandha: Gives perfume;
13. Pushpa: Gives flowers;
14. Dhupa: Burns incense;
15. Dipa: Swings a light before the idol;
16. Naivedya: A meal;

It is probable that already indigent Brahmans of rather poor education, who could get no employment in the Vedic duties, were glad to receive employment in Sudra temples; and their Sudra masters would be only too pleased to employ them. A real Brahman priest would add greatly to the dignity of a temple. While Brahmans were strictly forbidden to minister to Sudras, these Brahmans would argue, that in ministering in the temple they were not serving Sudras but Vedic gods. This plea would be quite unanswerable, if the god in whose temple the Brahman was acting as Priest was Siva or Vishnu or Surya; for these are truly Vedic deities.

When a real Brahman was appointed ministrant, he would insist that, since the god lives in the shrine, it must be kept pure. Only Brahmans therefore, who are human gods¹⁹, may enter the shrine where the images are, since it is the abode of one, or of several of the heavenly gods. He would also insist that, no outcastes or foreigners should be allowed to enter the temple precincts, only pure men or women of the four castes. He would unquestionably take care to have the ritual and the liturgy made as dignified and impressive as possible, and would see that all coarse and obscene observances should be excluded from the temple under his care. But well-carved images, each laden with jewellery and beautiful dress, the use of incense and flowers, singing and instrumental music, showy processions with banners and bands, and everything else of an innocent kind that would attract the common people in their thousands would be employed. The birthday of the god and the anniversary of his wedding would be splendidly celebrated; and his annual visit to the country would demand a gorgeously carved car, a showy and joyous procession and a beautiful barge that he may go for a sail on a lake in the country.

These reforms and advances would be copied by the other temples, as far as the priests found it possible to do so; and Dravidian priests stimulated by Brahman example, would seek a Sanskrit education for themselves and for their sons, and would imitate with peculiar care all that they saw done by those Brahman ministrants. Thus, rapid progress would follow.

By 400 B.C. it seems clear that, in the case of the great temples, strong foundations of stone were laid, and then stately temples of wood, beautifully carved, were erected thereon. Images were already graceful and attractive. The whole of the worship was being steadily improved and ennobled. Notable festivals, such as the birthday of the god, or of his consort, or the anniversary of their wedding, would be celebrated with great splendour; and crowds would witness the brilliant, ceremonies and would be thrilled with devotional fervour.

We now turn to the Aryans. We see from the literature that the three Aryan castes made rapid progress after their settlement between the rivers and in other parts of North India. As a people, they ruled a great country, as individuals many of them had acquired valuable land and were steadily rising in wealth. There was continuous development of local business, agriculture and banking, and trade with other parts of India.

Meanwhile, round about them were millions of Sudras, with whom they could have no religious or social relations, but with whom they had practical and profitable intercourse daily. The bulk of servile work and a great deal of agricultural artisan and manufacturing toil must have been done by Sudras, frequently under Aryan supervision, and almost always for Aryan masters, employers or purchasers. Thus, the two races were in close daily contact and must have become in many ways more and more assimilated to each other. Even the wealthiest members of the Aryan community must have been influenced in this way.

For many years the Vedic cult had been steadily growing more complicated. Nothing could be done without the aid of priests, and, from year to year, their ministrations, becoming more detailed and elaborate, were far more costly for those who employed them than they were formerly. Their success depended entirely on the skill and accuracy with which they were performed. The person for whom they were done and the members of his family could do nothing to help in these matters. In all sacrificial matters the priests were everything, while the laity were practically ciphers. Religious observances had become almost completely officialised. The house-holder and his wife were almost excluded from their own religion: they must have felt they were left out in the cold. Those who were poor had to do without those sacrifices altogether; and for widows and children they meant nothing.

We also recollect that every act of Aryan worship was a domestic rite: they had no public worship; while the Sudra cult, like the Dravidian village worship of South India, was open to every one.

In this condition of affairs when there was little piety, little religious feeling, little moral stimulus left in the cult, fewer and fewer men were eager to pay for those expensive rites.

Thus, as the men of the three castes grew in wealth, culture and knowledge, their old religion meant less and less to them.

Meanwhile, as we have already seen, the Aryan classes, though living in close touch with the Sudras and making progress in all practical things along with them, were being drawn nearer to them, and being brought to greater friendliness and more sympathetic understanding of them.

Naturally, they watched the growth of temple-and-image worship among the Sudras with interest. It was so different from their own traditional cult that, at first, it must have seemed altogether foreign, strange and barbarous.

But when graceful images began to make their appearance, in becoming dress and tasteful jewellery; when temples of great architectural beauty arose; and Vedic deities such as Vishnu, Siva and Surya were represented in artistic images and were worshipped in a stately ritual with liturgical utterances in Sanskrit, they could no longer despise Sudra worship. It was clear that the priests led the worship with sincerity and gravity and that the people were moved to very deep devotional feeling. The great festivals stirred every one that took part in them.

Then these twice-born men began to notice that their own women and young people went to the temples wherever they had the opportunity. At festival times, they were there in crowds: and at ordinary, seasons there would be always a few women and children present, at least in the temples whose ministrants were Brahmans. The man or woman who was in real distress went to the temple to pray. Soon the older men would begin to scold and threaten. All this wandering away from the Vedic faith to the degrading superstitions of uncultured Dravidian was gross impiety: and those who were guilty ought to be driven out of the Aryan community to live with the unclean barbarians whose temples they frequented.

On the other hand, those Brahmans who were acting as ministrants in temples would protest that they were able to minister to the gods and yet to keep all Vedic rules. In the chief temples in which they, ministered only Vedic gods were worshipped; and no one but the Brahman priest was allowed to enter the shrine, approach the image and perform the ritual. The liturgical phrases in use were all Sanskrit. Only people belonging to the four Castes were admitted to the temple; and no unseemly rites or irreverent behaviour was allowed in the temple precincts.

Those persons of the three castes who had become accustomed to the temple worship protested that they found the worship of the temple so congenial and so great a help to them in their religious life that it would be a crime to deprive them of it. The practice of worshipping in the temple, instead of injuring them morally or religiously was a great joy and a most profitable exercise. All men and women of the three castes ought to be free to worship in the temples.

The result would be a serious storm; but soon it would become abundantly clear that the new practice could not be put down. Too many people were already devoted to it, and the taste for the temple was seizing young men and women rapidly. Reasonable men therefore began to urge that arrangements should be made whereby the people of the three castes would be able freely to visit the temples.

Then some practical-minded Brahman would suggest that there was no reason why men and women of the three castes should not be free to visit temples in which the following four rules were kept:

1. That the ministrants should be Brahmans,
2. That the liturgical phrases should be in Sanskrit.
3. That the sixteen operations should form the ritual.
4. That only people of the four castes should be admitted to the temples.

It would be at once pointed out that, in the temples in which the ministrants were actually Brahmans, the four rules suggested were already seriously enforced. There were also a number of temples in which the ministrants, though non-Brahmans, were men who had a Sanskrit education and that, already in those temples, the second, third and fourth conditions were observed.

Our practical Brahman would then propose that, in the case of all temples where the managing body were ready to accept the four rules as binding, the present incumbents should be recognised as Brahmans, even if not Brahmans by birth, but that henceforward only sons of Vedic Brahmans, or of those men who had been recognised as Brahmans, should be appointed as ministrants.

There is no record in the literature that any such arrangement was made; but, since every Hindu temple throughout India is to this day governed by the four rules just stated, it is perfectly clear that the tradition is absolutely trustworthy.

There is then the further most noticeable fact that, ever since the rise of temple-worship, and all over India, Brahmans who act as temple-ministrants are held by Hindus in far lower estimation than other Brahmans. If the above statement, that all Sudra temple ministrants at the time of the great change, were recognised as Brahmans, then, clearly the majority of the families which now provide the temples with ministrants, are sprung from non-Brahmans, who received recognition as Brahmans, when the temples were thrown open; and this universal attitude to temple-ministrants receives a historical explanation sufficient to account for it.

The supposition that this was done is greatly strengthened also by certain facts which have come down to us in Hindu history. Of these we shall cite only one. Soon after the Christian era, the worship of the Vedic Sun-god, Surya, became very popular in North India, and large numbers of Magian priests who ministered in the temples of the Persian sun-god, Mithra, came from Persia to India and became ministrants in temples of Surya. After a time of considerable discussion, they were recognised as Brahmans. That fact is sufficient in itself to enable us to gauge the feeling of early India on a question of this kind.

Henceforward, then, these regularised temples were recognised as open to men and women of the four castes and to no other person, No pure Hindu would worship at an aboriginal shrine of the old type, where there was no Brahman priest and no Sanskrit ritual, and where outcastes and foreigners might freely worship.

This arrangement, originally made in the north, would gradually spread with the Hindu race all over India; and men of Brahman birth would go with the Hindu people and serve, as ministrants in the temples wherever they were established.

Probably about the same time the habit of keeping a few small images in the home for domestic worship began to spread among the high-caste people. It is practically universal among Hindus today. In the case of wealthy families, a Brahman is appointed family priest and visits the house regularly to conduct the worship. In other circumstances, the father or the mother performs the worship regularly.

The idea of a temple is that it is a replica of the gods heavenly home. The beautifully sculptured tower represents the big architecture of heaven. The image is actually a likeness of the god. Further, each image is believed to be alive. When it is consecrated, a special priest performs a ceremony called pranapratishtha i.e., the establishment of life; and thereafter the image is alive, sees and hears and speaks, eats and drinks, and also from time to time moves about. Thus, all that is done in the temple is natural and right: for the image hears the liturgy and the hymns, watches all the ritual, and eats the food and drinks the water brought to him. The image is as it were, the living deputy of the god in heaven, and yet is held to be identical with him.

Thus, as the king sits in state in his palace and receives his people, so the god has his place of honour in his temple, and his people pay him visits. He welcomes them to his presence and receives their adoration. They bring gifts of food or flowers or money: no one comes empty-handed. The poorest and the humblest are as welcome as the richest and the noblest. The broken-hearted widow stands or falls prone on the ground before the god, and pours out her prayer: the mother comes and prays for her sick child; the father asks for his family. The devotee comes and sings out the fullness of his heart in a hymn of praise. Each rejoices to see the face of god. But the chief joy is to see the priest perform the worship. Then, at the close of the worship, each visitor receives a portion of the food which has been laid before the god. It is called prasad, a grace-gift, and it is believed to be filled with divine power. All eat before they leave the temple. Although I am an unclean Mlechchha, i.e., “barbarian” in Hindu parlance. I have on several occasions, had prasad given me, when leaving a temple. Strictly speaking, I ought not to have been admitted to these temples, but as a serious student of the religion, and reverent in all I said and did in relation to the temple, I have several times been taken in by a Hindi scholar, that I might have a brief look.

Visitors to India notice that Hindu men and women frequently have lines, or curves, printed on the forehead; and the remark is commonly made among Europeans, “These are caste marks”. But that idea is a serious mistake; they are sect marks. Each represents the divinity which the wearer has chosen as his or her god. The custom is a very old one, and was well known in antiquity. It is called the naman or name in India today. See Revelation 22:4 as a verse suggested by temple worship.

It is well to note that animal sacrifice was common in the worship of all the gods that were enshrined at this time, and human sacrifice was also practised in many of the temples dedicated to the goddess, and also in those dedicated to Bhairava, i.e, the Terrifier, a peculiarly furious form of Siva. At later dates, animal sacrifice was repudiated and given up in all temples dedicated to Vishnu; but it is still common in the majority of temples of the goddess and in certain temples dedicated to Siva.

In the temple court there may be a devotee who sings at length the story of the god, so that the people carry away the legend in their hearts and if the goodness of the god is celebrated in the service in song, they learn the hymns and sing them as they return to their homes. This is the source of bhakti, fervid devotional feeling towards a god who is good to men.

The temples compete with each other, the priests of each temple glorifying the god to the utmost so that crowds of worshippers may constantly visit it. Thus, the greater and more beautiful the building is, the more striking the image is and the finer the service is, the more popular the temple will become, and the larger the crowds of its visitors will be.

The Sanskrit word for a temple-ministrant is, in North India, pujari, literally “Worshipper”, in the south, archaka, literally “Praiser”.

One now and then finds a temple containing but a single image in the shrine, but there are usually two or three, and in some temples there are five. The most usual arrangement is a group of three, the god with two consorts, one on each side, and that always forms the most graceful group. If the god has a famous friend, whether human or animal, he also appears in an image somewhere near. Thus, Rama is seldom seen without his friend, Hanuman, the divine monkey, and Siva is never seen separated from the bull.

The ancient Vedic sacrifices have never evoked much enthusiasm in the hearts of the twice-born: they are Vedic: they were ancient; they are the will of the gods, but they do not stimulate men to high deeds or to noble emotions.

But the worship of the temple has stirred uncounted Hindus to deep feeling and to joyous praise. Each man has felt that he met his god there and that in the temple, he could both pray and worship. Religion there has been a living experience to him, something he could rejoice in The man in dark distress goes to the temple to see the face of the god, to pray and to find consolation.

The thousands of the Hindu people also who are in no serious trouble or fear go to the temple to see the processions to hear the hymns sung by some famous singer, to watch the priest perform the ritual and to feel along with the multitude, the surge of religious emotions, the joy of united praise and of contact with the divine.

The following lines by the greatest devotee of the Maratha country, Juanesvara, shows how the best Hindus feel about temple-worship. In these lines, Krishna is called Vitthal, his usual name in that part of India, Rukmini is his consort.

    When thy visage I descry,
    O how glad, how glad am I.

    Vitthal is, the good, the fair,
    Madhav, good beyond compare.

    Many blessings gather here
    How can Vitthal but be dear?

    Every joy is found in thee,
    Father, Lord of Rukmini

²⁰

The dual people were never united religiously until they accepted temple-and-image worship. The Aryans had their worship, and the Sudras had theirs, but there was no common religious ground until they met in the temple. Thus, this rich worship really made the dual people one. At what time the word Hindu came into use as designating the whole people, the writer does not know; but the truth is that the Hindu people were made one by the introduction of this attractive type of worship; the Hindus have actually been one people since 400 B.C. From that date then onwards we may consistently speak of the Hindu people.

It was from temple-and-image worship that Indian art was born: architecture arose in obedience to the demand of the temple; the Indian spirit of divine strength and beauty created sculpture; and the desire for the worthy decoration of surfaces led to the rise of painting.

We ought to note here, that, at the very time when the masses of the people were being fascinated by the spectacle of temple-worship and all its rich emotions, the Brahmanical priesthood were carefully codifying all the material contained in the books called the Brahmanas, which deal with the ancient Aryan Worship and with the home life of the people.

The outcome of their labours was the Kalpa Sutras. Each collection of Sutras is a sort of classified index of the particular subject dealt with. These books reflect the educational method of the period which consisted almost entirely in filling the memory with material so arranged and expressed that it could be readily recalled. Thus, the shorter the expression, the more welcome it was to the compiler each sentence expressed in a sutra reads like a telegram cut so short as to be practically incomprehensible. All study and learning were still oral: there were no manuscripts.

We need not follow the ritual sutras any further, but we ought to mention the legal sutras; they are still the basis of all Hindu law.

We must also mention the most famous of all Hindu sutras, namely, Panini’s Grammar. This most masterly work, the most perfect grammar of antiquity, was written about 300 B.C.

Comments on Sivagnanabotham

By Rev. H.A. POPLEY

Stanza 1. The Existence of the Supreme

The purpose of this stanza is to prove that the God who causes the dissolution of the universe is also its First Cause. In Indian philosophy the work of Dissolution has always been connected with the God Siva. So it is here asserted that Siva is not merely the name of a particular deity, who carries out one particular function for all the universe. This is asserted again and again in the Saivite Scriptures.

    What sin is this that our people count our Lord as one of
    Three and talk of three gods ruling the world.

— Tiruvasakam

    Thou art the triune godhead who creates, preserves, and destroys the universe.

— Sivagnanasiddhi

He transcends our thought. Yet, because He is free from all sense imperfection and enjoys perfect bliss, and because He is the Teacher who makes known the Saiva scriptures. He is the one God who is worshipped by all who have become devotees of Saivism.

This stanza contains three main propositions which deal with

1. The constitution of The universe;
2. The functions of The Supreme Being in The universe;
3. the identity of the First Cause with the final dissolver of the universe.

The first proposition asserts that the universe undergoes the evolutionary changes of creation, evolution and dissolution, which are preceded and followed by successive periods of similar changes. So creation should be called Re-creation. For every dissolution is followed by a re-creation and every re-creation presupposes a dissolution. These three states may be regarded as parts of a continuous evolutionary process which is continually repeated,

This proposition refers to material things. All material things are subject to these three processes. Even the smallest material atoms have a place in this and are parts of it because, they are material and many. On the other hand the sense-principle of self-assertion, though material is not many, and souls, though many are not material, and so neither of these can be classified as members of the material universe. The members of the material universe are those things which are objects of the senses and are of the male, female or neuter gender.

The second proposition asserts the necessity of a sufficient cause for all these evolutionary changes. The term sense-impurity or sense-principle (malam) denotes certain attributes which belong to the soul, in its sensory mode of existence. These attributes are regarded as imperfections or impurities which are abolished in the perfected condition of the soul. They are three. First, sensuousness (maya). In the Saiva Siddhanta this word does not mean illusion, except in so far as that meaning has been transferred to it from the illusory nature of the material universe and of the sensory apprehension of the universe. Second, self-assertion or individual consciousness (anavamalam). Third, the retributory force of actions (karma). These principles have their full operation in this universe of material existence.

It is stated that the sense-principle of self-assertion is the secondary cause of the successive evolutions of the universe.

“For every event three causes are needed: the substantial cause, the instrumental cause and the efficient cause. The universe must have its clay, wheel and potter. So sensuousness is the clay, the divine energy is the wheel and God is the potter.” (Sivagnana Siddhiar 1,8).

The sense-principle of self-assertion can only be destroyed by means of its complete working out in successive existences. The reason for the dissolution of the world is the necessity for bringing to an end the activity of the principle of retribution. It is necessary that this principle should be quiescent for a time in human souls.

    Why should the universe after its dissolution
    come to rebirth? It comes to rebirth so that sense
    impurity may be abolished. Why then should it
    be dissolved? It is dissolved so that the soul, tired
    of suffering its continuous retribution, may have a
    rest. Then again in accordance with the law of
    retribution God will bring it to rebirth.

— Sivagnana Siddhiar 1:32

If one looks for the cause of these operations the answer will be ‘the divine play’. To the Saivite all these operations in the universe are ‘the play of the Lord.’

    What is the reason for these operations? They
    are the easy play of His mind; or we, may say that
    they are the outpourings of His love so that the
    soul may enjoy heavenly bliss, and freedom from
    impurity.

— Sivagnana Siddhiar 1:36

There are five such operations of God, as shown in the following verse.

    Dissolution is rest; creation is the abolition of
    the fruit of action; preservation is their enjoyment;
    obscuration is the teaching of the similarity of all
    actions and the bringing to fruition of the sense
    impurities; grace is the freeing from all fetters.
    Thus, all the five operations are due to divine grace.

— Sivagnana Siddhiar 1:37

In the second Section I the doctrines of the Vaishnavites are refuted. Maya is that illusive materiality which is said by Vaishnavites to be the ground of the universe. One commentator describes the operation as follows.

    The divine being united with his divine energy
    to inspire in that energy love, wisdom and
    operative power. Then taking the form of love.
    He creates all the powers and principles of the
    universe and arranges all the sounds and letters.
    Afterwards in union with the principle of sensuousness
    He fashions bodies for the souls in accordance
    with their previous actions and again resolves
    them into Himself.

— Sivapragasam 1:2

In No. 2 the creation of the universe is pictured in the simile of the seed and shoot. The seed is sensuousness, which alone persists through the period of dissolution, The shoot is the created universe and the moistened soil is the gracious energy of the divine will. Another simile used is the worm in the hornet’s nest. The worm is thought to have a persisting desire for a hornet’s form and in accordance with that desire the form is Induced. So the persisting desires of a former life determine the form of the soul’s rebirth.

In No. 3 the changeless nature of God is expressed. All the evolutions of the universe take place as the different expressions of His will and do not involve any evolution in His nature.

    The Lord will affect all evolutions as His own
    work. After dissolution He will cause all to be
    reproduced, and yet He Himself will suffer no
    change. In the presence of the one sun which
    journeys through the heavens, one lotus will be
    opening, another will be budding and another will
    be withering.

— Sivapragasam 1:2

In the Third Section the supremacy of the one Lord over all the universe, both spiritual and material, is asserted. All the operations of the universe, natural, mental and spiritual, are the work of the one Supreme Lord. The supreme Being here spoken of is not one of the Hindu triad Vishnu, Brahma, Rudra - although Rudra and Siva are often identified. The supreme Being of the Siddhanta is one far above these manifestations of Deity, One who transcends, all human knowledge. This supreme Being is the Parabrahman of the Vedas, who is called by His followers Siva. All other divine names indicate the supreme Being as performing various functions in the universe.

    Do not think that Brahma and Vishnu are equal
    to the Lord. Each one depending upon Him does
    the work allotted to him. If they could perform the
    work alone what need of a supreme Being? So they
    are as ministers to a king. So the Lord who performs
    all the five operations gives each his special
    work.

— Sivagnana Yogi

(The continuation of these notes Will Form the bulk of our next number - Editor)

Edited and published by J.S. Moon, Barrackpore

Printed by The Oriental Art Press, 1 Newul Rishere Road (Hazratgani), Lucknow